JUDGMENT Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, ACJ. : - The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01/08/2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat vide which the respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The brief snap shot of the present case capsuled in the complaint is that complainant is manufacturer and supplier of handloom fabrics, durries, bedcovers, furnishing fabrics etc. Accused purchased 100% cotton handloom durries from the complainant worth Rs.3,26,565.51 vide bill No.248 dated 25/09/1995 on credit basis. As part payment of the said amount, the accused issued a cheque No.47844 dated 26/09/1995 for Rs.2,00,000/-drawn on State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Panipat in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in his account which was with State Bank of India, Industrial Area, Panipat for payment but the same was dishonoured and returned to his bank by the drawee bank vide memo dated 28/09/1995. The complainant informed the accused with regard to the said lapse and on the same the accused assured the complainant that the same would be honoured if presented next time. On the said assurance, complainant presented the cheque again in his bank but the same was dishonoured on account of non-arrangement of funds vide memo dated 7/2/1996. Thereafter the complainant served a legal notice to the accused by post which was duly replied by him firstly on 29/02/1996 and secondly on 09/03/1996. Since the accused did not make the payment as demanded in the said legal notice to the complainant, hence the present complaint was filed by invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in which the accused were summoned to face trial. 3. In support of the accusations, complainant examined PW1 Mr. S.N. Garg, Deputy Manager, SBI, PW2 Mr. R.S. Walia, Godown Keeper and PW3 himself and also led documentary evidence. On the contrary, respondent examined himself as DW1 and Raman Kumar as DW2. In support of his defence, he also led documentary evidence. 4. No one on behalf of the appellant has put in appearance to assist this court. 5. The question which requires determination by this court is that whether the cheque which was given to the complainant by the accused was for a legally enforceable debt or was simplicitor a security cheque? 6. 4. No one on behalf of the appellant has put in appearance to assist this court. 5. The question which requires determination by this court is that whether the cheque which was given to the complainant by the accused was for a legally enforceable debt or was simplicitor a security cheque? 6. Learned counsel for the respondent while unfolding his submissions, has contended that though the dishonour of the cheque is admitted but the same was a security cheque given to the complainant and therefore the same was not meant for the purposes of enforceable of debt. He further contended that the legal notice sent by the complainant to the accused was not a valid notice as it was with regard to cheque No.47844 dated 26/09/1995 whereas the disputed blank cheque which was handed over to the complainant as security cheque bore No.476844. He further stated that the complainant has miserably failed to prove as to whether the cheque in question was issued to him towards part payment of Bill No.248 dated 25/09/1995 for Rs.3,26,565.51 or was issued against previous transaction. 7. Heard Learned counsel for the respondent and perused the case file. 8. Undisputedly, both the parties had business dealings with each other with regard to handlooms. It has come on record that the accused had issued cheque No.476844 as security cheque to the complainant which he presented for encashment by filling an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as part payment towards Bill No.248 dated 25/09/1995 for Rs.3,26,565.51/- but the same was dishonoured on account of non-arrangement of funds by the drawee bank. However surprisingly, complainant served a legal notice to the accused qua cheque No.47844 dated 26/09/1995 which apparently was not for the cheque in dispute. It may be true, that there was a typographical error in the said legal notice while typing out the cheque number but such typographical error if any, does not meet the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the only course left for the complainant was to give a fresh legal notice to the accused which admittedly has not been done in the present case and hence it is safe to conclude that for want of statutory compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 138 of the Act, the present complaint is not maintainable. The Trial Court appreciated the said aspect of the case and rightly came to an irresistible conclusion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish the accusations against the accused and thus accordingly while dismissing the complaint filed by him, acquitted the accused. 9. Further as per the testimony of Sushil Kumar DW1 and Raman Kumar DW2, complainant prepared false bill books and the Ledger maintained by his firm so as to coerce and pressurise the accused in making the said payment. The said fact is apparent from the cross examination of Sushil Kumar DW1 wherein he admitted that carbon copy of Bill No.248 is available in the Bill book but Mark A is not true photocopy of Bill No.248 available in the Bill Book Ex. PW1/E. He further admitted that Bill No.248, copy of which is available in the Bill book Ex. PW1/E is issued by his brother but he pleaded ignorance as to whom the original bill was given. In view of the said discrepancy, the authenticity of Bill No.248 for which the alleged cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant for discharge of its debt; being under a cloud, the Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and thus I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused in the present case. 10. There is yet another facet of the present case which has come on record in the shape of testimony of the complainant PW3 Sh. Lal Chand wherein he admitted that cheque Ex.D1 might have been issued against previous transaction, which thus apparently lends credence to the defence of the accused that the blank cheque was collected by the complainant company as security at the time of starting the business. 11. From the evidence brought on record, it is amply clear that the blank cheque was handed over to the complainant as a security cheque and was not meant for enforcement of a debt. The object of Section 138 of the Act is to avoid malignant trade practice of indiscriminately issuing cheques without sufficient funds. The facts and circumstances of the present case of this nature cannot be construed and brought within the gamut attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 12. The object of Section 138 of the Act is to avoid malignant trade practice of indiscriminately issuing cheques without sufficient funds. The facts and circumstances of the present case of this nature cannot be construed and brought within the gamut attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, while dismissing the present appeal, I uphold the findings recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat vide his judgment dated 01/08/2001 in acquitting the accused. Appeal dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————